Madras High Court
The Tamil Nadu State vs Aarayammal on 2 March, 2021
C.R.P.(MD)No.340 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 02.03.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE J.NISHA BANU
C.R.P.(MD)No.340 of 2021
and C.M.P.(MD)No.1932 of 2021
The Tamil Nadu State
Transport Corporation,
Dharmapuri,
Through its the Managing Director.
... Petitioner
Vs.
1.Aarayammal
2.Thatchinamoorthy
3.Vasantha ... Respondents
Prayer : Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 115 CPC., to
call for the records pertaining to the fair and decreetal order dated
14.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.535 of 2018 in M.C.O.P.No.1083 of
2012 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Dindigul District
and to set aside the same by allowing this civil revision petition.
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Sudalaiyandi
For Respondents : Mr.D.Venkatesh
ORDER
This civil revision petition has been filed to set aside the fair
and decreetal order dated 14.10.2019 passed in I.A.No.535 of 2018
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.340 of 2021
in M.C.O.P.No.1083 of 2012 on the file of the Additional District
Judge, Dindigul District.
2.The facts of the case is that the respondents herein filed a
claim petition in MCOP.No.1083 of 2012, due to the death of one
Muthukalai @ Muthusamy in the accident caused by the Driver of
the petitioner Corporation. Due to the non-appearance of the
petitioner Corporation, an ex-parte order came to be passed and
the Court below awarded a sum of Rs.2,57,200/- as compensation.
To set aside the exparte order, the petitioner corporation filed an
interlocutory application with a condone delay petition to condone
the delay of 1720 days. The Court below dismissed the said
petition. Aggrieved over the same, the present petition came to be
filed.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner corporation would
submit that due to the administrative reasons, the present delay
occurred and hence, he would pray for allowing of this petition.
4.The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that
the Court below rightly dismissed the application and there is no
infirmity.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.340 of 2021
5.In State of Bihar vs. Deo Kumar Singh (SLP(Civil)No.
13348/2019 dated 09.05.2019, the appeal was filed with the
delay of 728 days stating that the delay occurred in obtaining all
the sanctions from the respective departments and also in receiving
the affidavit and vakalathnama from the concerned department.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case, has held that a clear
signal has to sent to the Government Authorities that they cannot
approach the Court as and when they please on account of gross
incompetence of their officers and that too without taking any
action against the concerned officers. Ultimately, in the said case,
the Apex Court while declining to condone the delay of 728 days in
filing the appeal, imposed the cost of Rs.20,000/- to be recovered
from the officers responsible for that delay and be deposited to the
Mediation Centre of the Supreme Court within four weeks.
6.In the present case also, the delay is stated to have been
occurred for administrative reasons. In view of the above judgment
of the Apex Court, such kind of reasons cannot be termed as
sufficient reasons to condone the delay. Therefore, this Court is not
inclined to set aside the order of the Court below.
http://www.judis.nic.in
C.R.P.(MD)No.340 of 2021
J.NISHA BANU, J.
gns
7.Accordingly, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No
costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
02.03.2021
Index :yes/No
Internet:yes/No
gns
NOTE: In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19
pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official
purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented
is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the
advocate/litigant concerned.
To
The Additional District Court,
Dindigul District.
C.R.P.(MD)No.340 of 2021
http://www.judis.nic.in
